On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> My understanding of something that belongs to LICENSE ended up in NOTICE >>> because Daniel Kulp and Me had different instructions or misunderstood >>> Cliff >>> "directives". >> >> cliff tends towards sublety (too long talking to lawyers, i think). >> categorical directives aren't his style. > > That's why I used quotes, and "his style" is what created this ambiguity ;-) > A directive would have created a certain result, this way people keep asking > what we have to do, most project put all the licenses in the LICENSE file, > but Daniel placed license references in the NOTICE and it seems Cliff > approved that work ;-)
copyright law is rarely categorical: it's tough to come up with a good general rule which can be blindly applied AIUI policy is relatively flexible about placement but best practice is to be encouraged >>>>> You see I was in that thread too with many post about my opinions and >>>>> doubt >>>>> about mixing policies, legal requirements and personal preferences. I >>>>> still >>>>> have the same doubt I had before that thread. >>>>> From my understand each one ended up keeping his previous opinion and >>>>> we >>>>> had >>>>> no new board "rules" from that. >>>> >>>> the board of the ASF set very few rules: the legal-affairs committee >>>> are charged with legal stuff with approval by the membership >>>> >>>>> I personally didn't reply to this: >>>>> http://markmail.org/message/mrbob6xo7c42bqh3 >>>>> only because if it is true then I would resign from the PMC because I >>>>> don't >>>>> want to be liable for each commit made by others and we could skip the >>>>> release vote process at all because our repository would be always >>>>> releasable and we would need to vet each commit in RTC as a written >>>>> rule >>>>> by >>>>> the board. >>>> >>>> the vote is to ensure that a release is official. this offers a >>>> measure of protection to release managers under most reasonable legal >>>> systems >>> >>> I agree. But this would be nonsense >> >> no: issuing a release is definitely an act of publication. in many >> legal systems, this makes a big difference. > > Sorry.. maybe my poor english: "nonsense" was about the next sentence you > quoted separately. Making a difference between what we have in svn and a > release IMHO makes A LOT OF SENSE. > In fact I'm telling that we should care of releases and not of svn, and if > svn is an issue we should hide it (or part of it) to the world :-) > >>> if each PMC member is anyway responsible >>> at any time for what is in SVN. >> >> depends on what you mean by responsible. the PMC is charged with >> oversight by the board so this is one responibility. >> >> (perhaps you mean culpability) > > Maybe, sorry but even a dictionary does not help too much with this terms: > in italian they often are synonymous. culpability is about the apportioning of blame and so it typically used in a negative sense. in this context, it finding of blame by the legal system. responsibility is more about ethics, morality and duty. one may be responsible for a deed but others may be found culpable in law for it. <snip> >>> The ASF-ALv2 header tells people "see the NOTICE file distributed with >>> this >>> work": if you download a single file from svn there is no "work" (or >>> there >>> is no NOTICE in the "distribution"). >> >> the document is the work. subversion is the distribution mechanism. >> (and yes apache spent years working through this and other matters >> with lawyers) > > Ok, so there is no NOTICE file within the work, because the work is the fiel > that should be referred in the NOTICE file. > > If instead you create an archive and inside the archive you have both the > "single file" and the NOTICE then there is a NOTICE file distributed with > the work. > > Otherwise if the fact that a file in a folder of an http server (subversion > is not different from it) and another NOTICE file is in a different folder > means that it is "distributed with" the first file simply because it uses > the same distribution mechanism and the same source then this would be a big > issue, because if we have a GPL file in the same server every other file > from the same server will be hit by the GPL virality: fortunately people > (lawyers) already agreed that this is not the case. the GPL specifically addresses aggregation in this particular fashion >>> "apache asks that projects": who is "apache" in this sentence? >>> Apache License? ASF members? ASF committers? ASF legal-affair? ASF board? >> >> apache is the apache software foundation >> >> i was just trying to explain the reasoning behind the policy (as i >> understand it) > > Sorry but what I meant is that a foundation does not speak :-) so > someone/somewhat have to speak in place of the foundation. > Once I'll know who "asks that projects" I know who I have to talk with if I > want him to ask something, or something different ;-) > >>>>> BTW I am only one more troll in the repeating NOTICE/LICENSE flame. I >>>>> would >>>>> simply like to have the board publish clear RULES about what ASF >>>>> committers >>>>> HAVE TO do regarding releases and svn, and what behaviour/solutions are >>>>> policies to be defined by single PMCs. I would keep my opinion on what >>>>> is >>>>> legally required or not, but I would for sure follow the board >>>>> requirements. >>>> >>>> apache believes in self-governing communities. this is why the board >>>> does not impose rules from above. i've been involved in the legal side >>>> at apache for several years now, and the sad truth of the matter is >>>> that copyright and trademark law are not really suitable for a set of >>>> simple rules to follow. >>> >>> Ok, but people take care to come here and tell what is wrong in our >>> distribution, referring to what MUST BE done instead. >> >> i'm not sure i'd put it quite as strongly as that > > Sure, don't take me so "hard" as I seem: I just want to understand and I > hate when I think I understood something and instead history keeps repeating > with topics revamped over and over again. > The *fact* is that most ASF committers do not understand this matter and > most ASF committers do not even care for this while the *problem* is that > there is too many committers spreading personal preferences as > LAWS/RULES/POLICIES when they are not ;-) energy is required to change and improve things. >>> I'm am in the JAMES PMC, so, if people tell the JAME PMC what MUST be >>> done >>> then I think there is something above the JAMES PMC: either it is some >>> law >>> for some jurisdiction I should care about or it is some entity in the >>> ASF: >>> if it is not the board then the board itself should tell us what is the >>> entity entitled in telling us what we MUST do. >>> >>> BTW we know there is some "ASF wide"-policy: who define it, where are >>> written and what is the process to discuss changes or disambiguate >>> issues? >>> Either the board define them, or there is a community/members process in >>> place. >> >> members appoints and oversees the board. the board appoints committees >> from the membership to deal day to day with some matters. in this >> case, the policy is set by infrastructure and legal-affairs >> committers. changing policy means lobbying these committees who will >> then consider proposals and take them to the membership. i'm a member >> and on the legal-affairs committee but IIRC i haven't spoken with that >> hat on in this forum. > > THANK YOU! This is a first step. > > here: http://www.apache.org/foundation/ i see: > "V.P., Legal Affairs Sam Ruby" > On www.apache.org I cannot find who are "committers" for "infrastructure" > and "legal-affairs", but at least I have a "V.P.".. there committees lack public documentation > In this page: http://people.apache.org/~jim/committers.html > I find "legal" and "infrastructure" groups. there are permission groups not committers <snip> > No references to "Legal Affairs" or "Infrastructure" :-( > > The whole bylaws document do not reference "Legal Affairs" or > "Infrastructure" :-( committees are created by the board > Reading that stuff I was convinced there was the Board and the project PMCs, > that's why I kept talking about JAMES PMC and the Board and no one else! ... > I understand from your words that there is much more than what I read on > apache website... and I'm interested in learning it. IIRC there is some more information in the committers repository - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
